Electoral False Choices or False Options (RE: Nathan, Bill Bradley, CALPERS, and the Left)

[Nathan Newman]

>On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
>In Canada, the  CCF pioneered medicare and introduced many
> other reforms while in power in Saskatchewan...To a lesser
> extent the CCF's successor also introduced
> significant reforms.
>    Perhaps one of the reasons that third parties in the US have not been
> successful is that activists such as Nathan have continued to work for the
> Democrats.

Except my point was that I have worked in third party efforts, probably more
than most of those from the US who complain about the Democrats, but have
probably never worked a precinct or manned a phone bank for the Greens or
other third party. I actually would take all the accusations of being a
Democratic hack more seriously, if I didn't know that I had spent more time
campaigning for third party candidates than almost all the accusers on this
list.

It's precisely because a large portion of third party advocates like it in
theory, but do nothing to advance it that makes me so pissed off that they
denigrate the hard work of those working to elect the best progressive
candidates they can, even if they happen to be Democrats.  I have the
general activist bias that if you aren't doing organizing yourself, don't
piss on other peoples work.  If you want to prove your point, organize,
demonstrate a successful model and then pursuade others to emulate it.

The problem is that almost all the third party campaigns in the US have been
abysmal failures that have left successive waves of activists skeptical that
it is a useful approach. There are no useful models, so most organizers are
unpursuaded to do it themselves.

The Canada example is a good illustration of exactly why US leftists
continue to be mesmerized by the lure of third party politics, yet I think
miss the point.  What most illustrates the difference between the US and
Canada is that in 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act criminalized most union weapons
in the US and made union elections much harder.  Canada retained card-check
recognition and while the US union numbers began their slow plunge to their
present pathetic level, Canada's unionization rate continued to rise.

Given that union power, grassroots forces were able to push through more
reforms than in the US.  Whether the label was CCF, New Democratic, or had
it been Liberal, the key issue is non-electoral power, not the party name or
other electoral gimmicks.  Union and other forces had power, so they could
push through reforms.  The electoral vehicle is pretty much besides the
point.

As to the question- Why Canadian unions went third party from the Liberals,
that probably has to do with party rules there.  Information question, do
parties in Canada have control of who the candidate is in each district or
is each district free to choose their candidate on the party list?  I was
under the impression that parties had strong power to pick the candidate
lists (as they do in England), so dissident party members have no option but
third party since they can't run candidates in specific districts against
the party's wishes.   In the US, local activists and unions have almost
always had the power to take over party selection if they had the voting
power to do so in a particular district, whatever the national party might
desire.  This allowed unions in the US to fund and control the selection of
Democratic party candidates in districts where they were strong, making a
third party label unnecessary.  The problem was that the unions are not
strong enough in enough districts to wield as much power proportionately as
Canadaian unions were able to.

-- Nathan Newman